Apple has won a partial injunction against Samsung that bars the importation, …

Apple has been awarded a preliminary injunction barring Samsung from importing, distributing, or selling its Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Ace smartphones in the European Union. Samsung must halt sales of the devices by October 13 in the EU, though its Galaxy Tab devices aren't affected for the time being.

Apple launched an all-out attack on Samsung earlier this year, accusing the company of "slavishly copying" the design of the iPhone and iPad for its own smartphones and tablets in a US lawsuit. The dispute has since spilled over into 19 separate legal actions in nine different countries around the world, including Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, UK, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Apple has so far won favorable rulings in Australia, where Samsung has for now delayed the launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and in Germany, where it won a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on a European Community Design registration.

Apple can claim another small victory on Wednesday, as a judge in The Hague ruled that Samsung's Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Ace smartphones violate an Apple European patent. Specifically, the judge noted that Samsung's Android-based smartphone's infringed on EP 2,059,868, "Portable Electronic Device for Photo Management." The nature of the full decision is unclear, but it appears that the judge has so far rejected Apple's claims that the devices also infringe on patents for interpreting certain multitouch events and swiping along a graphic to unlock a phone.

But the decision isn't the slam dunk Apple was hoping it would be. Notably, the ruling does not affect Samsung's Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1v tablets. Furthermore, the court did not consider Apple's claims that Samsung's smartphones and tablets violate its copyright and design registrations—apparently Apple did not offer any counter to certain arguments Samsung made with respect to those claims, so the judge did not consider them for the preliminary injunction. Those issues will be decided later during the full trial.

It also appears that Apple may have let slide some local registrations for the patent in question, so the ban may not be enforceable in much of Europe, including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain. However, the patent is crucially enforceable in The Netherlands, where Samsung's European logistics is based. Effectively, Samsung will have to completely rearrange its European logistics in order to get its smartphones into the parts of Europe where the ban doesn't apply. That's not an impossible task, but it will likely be a major headache in the least.

"From what I gather, it is somewhat unusual for the Dutch court to enter a preliminary injunction in complicated patent cases like this," Evan Brown, a Chicago-based attorney that specializes in tech-related law, told Ars.

Though the standard for showing evidence for a preliminary injunction is perhaps a bit softer in The Netherlands than in the US, the judge focused mainly on the potential hardships of both parties given a particular decision. "It is my understanding that a Dutch court focuses more on that balancing of the hardships test, rather than on the strength of the original claim," Brown said.

Though it's easy to add a notch in Apple's win column, the case isn't over yet, Brown noted. "All this talk about preliminary injunctions can get crazy," he said. "The most important thing to remember is that it does not mean Samsung has lost the case. There will still be a full trial—assuming there is no settlement."

For its part, Samsung has vowed to fight the ruling and find workarounds to the injunction. "We will take all possible measures including legal action to ensure that there is no disruption in the availability of our Galaxy smartphones to Dutch consumers," the company told BBC News.

The injunction issues by the Dutch court goes into effect on October 13, around the same time that Apple and Samsung will begin oral arguments on a preliminary injunction against Samsung in the US. Brown suggested that Apple may have a much tougher legal challenge getting an injunction here. "The standard required in a US court, among other things, is that a party seeking an injunction would have to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits [of the case]."

Just another reason why it was a good thing for google to buy Motorola. Once the acquisition is complete and all the android oems pull together their patent pools rivers are going to run red.

maars wrote:

Very good decisions. Wonder if Samsung or google had the first multi touch phone - would they willingly let others copy it without proper royalties?

Thought so.

"The nature of the full decision is unclear, but it appears that the judge has so far rejected Apple's claims that the devices also infringe on patents for interpreting certain multitouch events and swiping along a graphic to unlock a phone."

I saw a girl at work with a Samsung phone, but at a glance I could have sworn it was an iPhone. Samsung has modified Android to look just like iOS, so I can't see why the Fanboys can't just accept that Samsung is a run-of-mill KIRF manufacturer and be done with it.

These patent wars need to be terminated. Can you imagine being a start-up? With these patent laws as they are, all we will ever have are Apple, Microsoft, and Google unless another already large company comes out of nowhere like Google did which relies completely on a completely different source of revenue. This doesn't lead to innovation, people, this just leads to large fish eating up the smaller fish to protect their wares - and we might sometimes get innovation if the smaller fish's ideas are assimilated.

The court threw out the other patent claims. The only one that stuck applies to a single application that Samsung is removing and replacing with a non infringing version. This won't even slow down shipments.

So Paul, do you blame Apple for ripping off Knight Ridder? OR is it only ok for Apple to steal?

I know we are living in a fast world, but please do read the judgement (or summary available in english at some sites). Less important: Apple won on one patent (regarding image gallery in Adndroid 2.x hence not affecting tablets as they use 3.x with different gallery app) and judge said in ruling that the "relative ease" with which Samsung could rectify situation played a part in making the decision (as Samsung already stated that they will simple replace gallery app with their own). Also less important: judge threw away both community design and other two patents from claim.

More important: the patent in question is obviously software in nature and this signals that software patents are both valid and enforceable in EU. This is a very small win for Apple, relative win for Samsung (as only gallery app if affected) and a very bad thing for all of us software developers in EU.

There is a large amount of confusion about even the most basic issues in this case. Talk about slavishly copying is not typically relevant to patent conflicts. There may be some issue surrounding intentions in a case where a company knowingly infringes on another company's patents. But patents apply whether or not the company infringing them knew about them or benefited in any way from the patent holder's activities. Presumably, some of the patents relating to touch screen displays will be very difficult to work around for anyone who wants to support touch based UI's on tablets or phones. The question of whether Apple is willing to license its patents on touch interfaces and at what terms are really the central ones in the collection of disputes. Those questions are separate from issues relating to Apple's ability to protect the details of the look and feel of its UI that distinguish its brand. Typically, that kind of issue is not handled by patents. But some of the patents cited in the media sound like some attempt may have been made to stretch patents to cover that kind of issue. In any case, that kind of issue is where the idea of slavish copying generally appears and has some merit.

I know we are living in a fast world, but please do read the judgement (or summary available in english at some sites). Less important: Apple won on one patent (regarding image gallery in Adndroid 2.x hence not affecting tablets as they use 3.x with different gallery app) and judge said in ruling that the "relative ease" with which Samsung could rectify situation played a part in making the decision (as Samsung already stated that they will simple replace gallery app with their own). Also less important: judge threw away both community design and other two patents from claim.

More important: the patent in question is obviously software in nature and this signals that software patents are both valid and enforceable in EU. This is a very small win for Apple, relative win for Samsung (as only gallery app if affected) and a very bad thing for all of us software developers in EU.

Cheers,Otto

QFT. This post says it all - good and bad. The really important (horrible) thing about today was the court upholding an obvious software patent, despite apparent EU regulation prohibiting these. Of course it could still be overturned in the full case if Samsung pursues it instead of just changing the app and letting it go - I ferverently hope it does so... This decision must not stand - I don't care about Apple, Samsung or Google, but we CANNOT allow software patents.

Unsurprisingly, there are no startups in the mobile space, at least not in the US. The environment is so inherently anticompetitive that you'd be mad to spend money entering the market.

I see PaulChapel is basically a mirror of Jesus Diaz today, though that's actually unusual for Diaz. The problem with insisting that "everyone should innovate instead of copying Apple" is that innovation is no protection from Apple and Microsoft's predatory practices. Nothing can protect you from a patent suit, your option afterwards is to settle or fight it to the end and hope you can either invalidate it or be found not infringing.

My suspicion is that Apple and MS have a goal to make the mobile space identical (but inverted) to the PC market place, with two major vendors dominating everything and few to no peripheral competitors.

This will all sort itself out over time. In the previous UI look and feel case between Apple, MS and HP, some minor elements were found to be infringing (the trash can icon I believe). Companies made the UI changes and moved on.

I think this process will happen in the current Apple vs. Samsung cases. UI elements will be identified by the courts, Samsung will make these minor changes and then the competing products will continue to be released.

"This is a very small win for Apple, relative win for Samsung (as only gallery app if affected) and a very bad thing for all of us software developers in EU."

This issue is still unclear because you can's patent a class of application. If you could, then Samsung could not just write its own without infringing the patent. I doubt that most software developers have to worry about patents. If you are working for some company, it is their problem. If you are creating you own software, nobody is going to spend money on worrying about your patent infringement unless you are making very large sums of money off your software. If you are making that kind of money, you will be able to afford the lawyers and royalties needed to resolve the problem.

Mixed decision? The court invalidated 9 of the 10 patents that Apple brought forth, including their precious swipe to unlock and grid of icons. The one patent that was upheld is trivial, and Samsung is expected to be in compliance by the end of the week. That means that Apple won a couple days of cut off sales and marketing in exchange for permanently losing several patents which they were likely collecting royalties on.

I doubt that most software developers have to worry about patents. If you are working for some company, it is their problem. If you are creating you own software, nobody is going to spend money on worrying about your patent infringement unless you are making very large sums of money off your software. If you are making that kind of money, you will be able to afford the lawyers and royalties needed to resolve the problem.

Perhaps you missed the video where they showed a very iPad like device in the concept stages.

Quote:

Do the people who made Knight Ridder have a patent on whatever you're referring to?

No patents necessary, the concept weakens Apple's claims that their design is somehow unique or innovative, as people had come up with something similar more than a decade ago. At the very least, it is prior art.

Perhaps you missed the video where they showed a very iPad like device in the concept stages.

Quote:

Do the people who made Knight Ridder have a patent on whatever you're referring to?

No patents necessary, the concept weakens Apple's claims that their design is somehow unique or innovative, as people had come up with something similar more than a decade ago. At the very least, it is prior art.

LOL, so in other words, they don't have a patent, so your point means absolutely nothing. And I don't see a tablet device in that link you provided.

I'd just like to point out that Europe is a continent, not a political entity. A ruling by a Dutch court might affect Samsung's business in the EU, but not all of Europe (which is bigger than just the EU).

Also, as a Galaxy S2 and iPhone 4 owner, I'm pretty peeved at Apple. If they're afraid of Samsung's inroads with the S2 they should make a bette product, not sue them hoping that the better product is banned from being sold.

Perhaps you missed the video where they showed a very iPad like device in the concept stages.

Quote:

Do the people who made Knight Ridder have a patent on whatever you're referring to?

No patents necessary, the concept weakens Apple's claims that their design is somehow unique or innovative, as people had come up with something similar more than a decade ago. At the very least, it is prior art.

LOL, so in other words, they don't have a patent, so your point means absolutely nothing. And I don't see a tablet device in that link you provided.

I saw a girl at work with a Samsung phone, but at a glance I could have sworn it was an iPhone. Samsung has modified Android to look just like iOS, so I can't see why the Fanboys can't just accept that Samsung is a run-of-mill KIRF manufacturer and be done with it.

I know. I saw an LG GX2 the other day and almost mistook it for an HTC EVO; HTC should sue the heck out of LG for stealing the rectangular shape and size of their unique creation.

The point about Knight Ridder's demo is that Apple should not be allowed to hold a patent on an idea that was in the public domain before their initial patent filing.

LOL, I love giving the Apple Haters enough rope to hang themselves. That prior art crap only applies in the United States. In most European countries, where this lawsuit was brought by Apple, patent law adheres to the the First-To-File doctrine, which means, quite literally if you file the patent first, all other instances of that invention have zero legal standing.

In the United States, we have a First-To-Invent patent system, which means prior concepts related to the patent can be taken in consideration and even invalidate a legit patent.

So score another one for Paul Chapel. He slaps down the know nothing Apple Haters once again, LOL!

...But the decision isn't the slam dunk Apple was hoping it would be. Notably, the ruling does not affect Samsung's Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1v tablets. Furthermore, the court did not consider Apple's claims that Samsung's smartphones and tablets violate its copyright and design registrations—apparently Apple did not offer any counter to certain arguments Samsung made with respect to those claims, so the judge did not consider them for the preliminary injunction. Those issues will be decided later during the full trial.

It also appears that Apple may have let slide some local registrations for the patent in question, so the ban may not be enforceable in much of Europe, including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain. However, the patent is crucially enforceable in The Netherlands, where Samsung's European logistics is based. Effectively, Samsung will have to completely rearrange its European logistics in order to get its smartphones into the parts of Europe where the ban doesn't apply. That's not an impossible task, but it will likely be a major headache in the least.

As noted in the article, the case is nowhere near resolved and Apple has at this point won nothing. It's a bit early to speculate on Samsung "completely rearranging its European logistics" and so on. I did find it amusing that after all of the rumored blather along the lines of "The [German] judge personally examined the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and concluded it was a copy!" we now see that was not the case at all (I mean, just looking at in-scale pictures of the two it was obvious the GT was no copy.) Indeed, Samsung can ship its EU tablets without restriction and with impunity, despite Apple's ardent desire otherwise.

Although it certainly appears that the EU is humoring Apple at the moment and giving it a couple of minor, hollow, and temporary victories with bans that "just so happen" to be unenforceable in the greaater part of the EU, I have to ask if anyone in the Ars audience actually approves of Apple's behavior in these matters. Apple's hubris is enormous, and there is little doubt that Apple believes that it owns the right to any and all products its competitors may manufacture. Regardless of how much someone might prefer Apple and its products, I can't see them pulling for events to occur which may help Apple in the short term but be very destructive for consumers over the long term.

Tell the truth, after more than two decades of listening to Apple bitch and moan and whine about "being copied" I have really had enough to last a lifetime. I'm done. Grow up, Apple. Please.

The point about Knight Ridder's demo is that Apple should not be allowed to hold a patent on an idea that was in the public domain before their initial patent filing.

LOL, I love giving the Apple Haters enough rope to hang themselves. That prior art crap only applies in the United States. In most European countries, where this lawsuit was brought by Apple, patent law adheres to the the First-To-File doctrine, which means, quite literally if you file the patent first, all other instances of that invention have zero legal standing.

In the United States, we have a First-To-Invent patent system, which means prior concepts related to the patent can be taken in consideration and even invalidate a legit patent.

So score another one for Paul Chapel. He slaps down the know nothing Apple Haters once again, LOL!

Wait... let me try replying in your trollish fashion just for fun: LOL... I think you just hung your self with your own rope there, LOL.

...I have to ask if anyone in the Ars audience actually approves of Apple's behavior in these matters. Apple's hubris is enormous, and there is little doubt that Apple believes that it owns the right to any and all products its competitors may manufacture. Regardless of how much someone might prefer Apple and its products, I can't see them pulling for events to occur which may help Apple in the short term but be very destructive for consumers over the long term.

Tell the truth, after more than two decades of listening to Apple bitch and moan and whine about "being copied" I have really had enough to last a lifetime. I'm done. Grow up, Apple. Please.

This is why I can't stand Apple Haters, because everything Apple does, even if it's in the tradition of EVERY OTHER FREAKING CORPORATION ON THE PLANET, they whine and whine about Apple being anti-competitive.

Apple has been paying Amazon for years to use their 1-Click transaction patent and I have yet to hear one Apple Hater here complain about Amazon. For years, Apple Haters have mocked the "Zoom" function of windows in the OS X's Finder and yet, most of them don't understand that Microsoft has a patent on maximizing windows, which is why Apple has steered clear of adding the same functionality to OS X.

Here again, the Apple Haters are silent on Microsoft. Apple also licenses technology from Nokia, Burst, InterDigital, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle and a number of other companies you probably never heard of, but as soon as Apple moves to protect their own IP, it's the MOST EVIL THING IN THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY, OMG!!!!

Apple Haters, get a grip. I know Apple's success is slowly killing you inside, but Apple's behavior is in no way unusual.

...But the decision isn't the slam dunk Apple was hoping it would be. Notably, the ruling does not affect Samsung's Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1v tablets. Furthermore, the court did not consider Apple's claims that Samsung's smartphones and tablets violate its copyright and design registrations—apparently Apple did not offer any counter to certain arguments Samsung made with respect to those claims, so the judge did not consider them for the preliminary injunction. Those issues will be decided later during the full trial.

It also appears that Apple may have let slide some local registrations for the patent in question, so the ban may not be enforceable in much of Europe, including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain. However, the patent is crucially enforceable in The Netherlands, where Samsung's European logistics is based. Effectively, Samsung will have to completely rearrange its European logistics in order to get its smartphones into the parts of Europe where the ban doesn't apply. That's not an impossible task, but it will likely be a major headache in the least.

As noted in the article, the case is nowhere near resolved and Apple has at this point won nothing. It's a bit early to speculate on Samsung "completely rearranging its European logistics" and so on. I did find it amusing that after all of the rumored blather along the lines of "The [German] judge personally examined the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and concluded it was a copy!" we now see that was not the case at all (I mean, just looking at in-scale pictures of the two it was obvious the GT was no copy.) Indeed, Samsung can ship its EU tablets without restriction and with impunity, despite Apple's ardent desire otherwise.

Although it certainly appears that the EU is humoring Apple at the moment and giving it a couple of minor, hollow, and temporary victories with bans that "just so happen" to be unenforceable in the greaater part of the EU, I have to ask if anyone in the Ars audience actually approves of Apple's behavior in these matters. Apple's hubris is enormous, and there is little doubt that Apple believes that it owns the right to any and all products its competitors may manufacture. Regardless of how much someone might prefer Apple and its products, I can't see them pulling for events to occur which may help Apple in the short term but be very destructive for consumers over the long term.

Tell the truth, after more than two decades of listening to Apple bitch and moan and whine about "being copied" I have really had enough to last a lifetime. I'm done. Grow up, Apple. Please.

The affected countries (UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finnland, Belgium, Netherlands and so on) are much richer then the countries that are not. They have lost a majority of their EU smartphone market.

LOL, that link has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about. It's only a definition of prior art, which I've already covered. And WTF, public domain? You do understand we're discussing patent law and not copyright law, right?

LOL, that link has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about. It's only a definition of prior art, which I've already covered. And WTF, public domain? You do understand we're discussing patent law and not copyright law, right?

Public Domain is a common phrase in both patent and copyright discussions. Do you know anything about this topic or are you just arguing with "LOL's" and "YOU APPLE HATER!" For your reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Effectively, Samsung will have to completely rearrange its European logistics in order to get its smartphones into the parts of Europe where the ban doesn't apply. That's not an impossible task, but it will likely be a major headache in the least.

No, they will not.

Quote:

Samsung is expected to modify the software on the phones so it won't violate the patent any more.[...]According to the lawyer of the South-Korean firm, the software on the smartphone is easy to replace.

That's a rough translation of an excerpt of the NOS arcticle.

In your interpretation of events, the injuction sounds quite severe, while in fact Samsung has until October 13th to upload new firmware all phones shipping through the Netherlands. Samsung also makes clear it isn't bothered by the injunction.

Public Domain is a common phrase in both patent and copyright discussions.

Yes, the term "public domain" can be used in patent law discussions, but it's almost completely irrelevant because once a patent gets old enough to actually fall into the public domain, technology has usually moved on far enough to make it useless. Public domain makes more sense in copyright for obvious reasons.

But public domain has no bearing on whether European countries are First-To-File or First-To-Invent in doctrine, unless you're trying to say that Apple's patents are old enough to fall in the public domain, which they aren't. So what was your point again?

Once more, and as a public service, I will entreat the commenters at large to steer clear of replying to Paul Chapel. Between his posts, responses to his posts, and responses to responses ad nauseum, dude is mentioned in 40% of the comments thus far (a hair above if you count this one). This would be all right if there was anything insightful in the posts, but all it amounts to is "Go Apple", and "You are stupid for not liking Apple".

Please, please, please, please, do not feed the troll. It's like planting kudzu.